How powerful can the President be if he or she doesn't have Congress or the Supreme Court on his or her side?

Ehm. . . Like one of the three most powerful people on the planet . . .

When it comes to passing laws in your country, the President is not more powerful than autocratic dictators such as Ali Khameini in Iran, Emmerson Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe or Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea. This is because of the checks of balances emposed on them by the constitution.

The President does not have the sole power to do that. That must have Congressional approval\

An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.

There are things we can do to combat it, such as fixing the electoral college, and making an amendment (which the President doesn't have any part in deciding on) to allow the federal government to improve education.

Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.

Do you think it is impossible for a government to have a broad power base and also a presidency? Germany, Iceland and Israel all have systems which guarantee a broader power base, namely an electoral system of proportional representation. These countries are all governed by a President.

Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.

Which European countries are you thinking of? France has a presidency, Germany has a presidency, Italy has a presidency, Finland has a presidency, etc. Most of the European countries which don't have a presidency have a monarch as their head of state. Do you believe a monarchy would be better than a presidency?

Your arguments in favour of a broad power base appear to be much more in favour of the United States transitioning from a presidential republic to a semi-presidential republic rather than "abolishing the presidency".

LBJ was informed by his generals in the mid 60s that there was no way the war could ever be won and recommended a complete withdrawal. He instead decided to escalate the war effort as he thought this would help his reelection chances.

When it comes to passing laws in your country, the President is not more powerful than autocratic dictators such as Ali Khameini in Iran, Emmerson Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe or Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea.

I never wrote that the POTUS is more powerful at "passing laws" so the fact that some dictators have more control of their laws is irrelevant. I suggested that the POTUS is one of the most powerful people on the planet.

Using this logic, David Irving knows more than most people about the holocaust.

You never should have ventured out of the Fun Forum as your logic is not strong enough for this type of discussion. Does finding a 100 year old smoker negate the claim that smoking is bad for you? It would be unusual for a teenager to know more about 1960s history than a 50 year old. That does not mean all 50-year olds know more about 1960s history than all teenagers.

Oh, so countries without a president can't pass reforms that help the poor???

An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.

It seems nothing in the comment above contradicts anything in the video you posted. In the future (in order to clarify the discussion), I suggest you write specifically what you think is false and then support your claim with a video or article.

Which European countries are you thinking of? France has a presidency, Germany has a presidency, Italy has a presidency, Finland has a presidency, etc. Most of the European countries which don't have a presidency have a monarch as their head of state. Do you believe a monarchy would be better than a presidency?

I have clearly been discussing the POTUS in particular and a narrow power base in general. The only thing the president of the U.S, the president of France, and the president of Germany have in common is the name of their job.

Your arguments in favour of a broad power base appear to be much more in favour of the United States transitioning from a presidential republic to a semi-presidential republic rather than "abolishing the presidency".

Yes. I meant "abolishing the presidency" under its current form.

Congratulations to a strong finish. You got one out of 10 right.

How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

I never wrote that the POTUS is more powerful at "passing laws" so the fact that some dictators have more control of their laws is irrelevant. I suggested that the POTUS is one of the most powerful people on the planet.

True. Is this an inherent bad or an inherent good? I personally think it's an inherent neutral.

Going back to your point, how do you estimate that, even not having support from the other branches, still make you one of the three most powerful people on the planet? At that point, Congress runs the country, not the President. See Presidents 17-21.

Does finding a 100 year old smoker negate the claim that smoking is bad for you? It would be unusual for a teenager to know more about 1960s history than a 50 year old. That does not mean all 50-year olds know more about 1960s history than all teenagers.

The point that Blue (new name) was making was that it's irrelevant how long you've lived. How does being 30 years old mean you know more than me about US History?

I personally studied it at College level formally (as well as @EquALLity). Have you?
Or, since you're older, you've experienced more American history first hand? Well, I know several people in particular that are about 15-20 years older than you, been through about 10 administrations. Different kinds of people too; liberals, conservatives, centrists, etc. Does this sound irrelevant? Well, so is your argument.

An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.

I'll attack this point head on, though I'm just going to be repeating myself.
There is such thing as the Supreme Court. They'll make sure the President doesn't overreach on his power.
And you may mention about the Secretary of the Treasury, but the President needs the Senate's approval in order to appoint cabinet members (and Court Justices). That's another important check and balance.

It seems nothing in the comment above contradicts anything in the video you posted. In the future (in order to clarify the discussion), I suggest you write specifically what you think is false and then support your claim with a video or article.

I have clearly been discussing the POTUS in particular and a narrow power base in general. The only thing the president of the U.S, the president of France, and the president of Germany have in common is the name of their job.

Developed countries have established their own democracies, similar to U.S.'s.

That's a pretty big assertion. Now, you must give compelling evidence as to why.

I agree that the Presidency can do a world of bad (Trump, Hoover, A. Johnson), but also a world of good (Obama, FDR, Lincoln).
I think you're falling prey to confirmation bias. Perhaps study U.S. History and Government? It isn't hard at all, like physics.

Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.

...Since they'd be able to vote more intelligently?
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson makes an interesting point in that it's not stupid politicians that is the problem; it's stupid voters.

Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.

Wow, you're being such a dick, did something happen? Or are you feeling extra sure of yourself today?

To answer your pointless and dumbass question, yes, for better or for worse, a president is needed. If we get rid of the presidency now, we won't have one in 2 and a half years. Maybe we can reverse the damage Trump is doing.

Going back to your point, how do you estimate that, even not having support from the other branches, still make you one of the three most powerful people on the planet?

I never wrote that the POTUS is more powerful at "passing laws" so the fact that some dictators have more control of their laws is irrelevant. I suggested that the POTUS is one of the most powerful people on the planet.[/quote]

Obviously I think it's an inherent bad. That's the whole point of my argument. Any system where attempts to limit the powers of the presidency must be approved by the president is inherently fucked up.

how do you estimate that, even not having support from the other branches, still make you one of the three most powerful people on the planet? .

Power comes down to two things:
1. The freedom to do as you please.
2. The potential of impact of the decisions the leader is able to make.

If one were to compare Trump to Putin, Putin definitely wins on point 1 whereas Trump would win on point 2. Some of the dictators mentioned earlier in this thread are so weak on point 2 that they don't come close to the power of Trump or Putin.

The point that Blue (new name) was making was that it's irrelevant how long you've lived. How does being 30 years old mean you know more than me about US History?

Accumulated knowledge over time is not irrelevant (at least not until senility kicks in), especially when discussing history that one of the parties is old enough to remember (or old enough to remember the direct aftermath).

Developed countries have established their own democracies, similar to U.S.'s.

Very few (if any) countries give away as much power to one person as the U.S. If one were to define a country's success according to the life quality of all its citizens relative to that country's location and amount of natural resources, the most successful countries are those with a wide power base.

Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.

Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.

Jebus, I agree with your viewpoint that a wide power base is better than a narrower one, and a semi-presidential republic would be better than a presidential one. However, this isn't what you said. You said you wanted to abolish the presidency.

Not "Would be better to get rid of the presidency as it stands", not "Would be better to reform the presidency". No. Get rid of. Abolish. Demolish. Crush. Decimate. Vanquish. Destroy without mercy.

If you had been more clear about what you really meant, there would be an avoidance of confusion. However, I know full well why you said you wanted to "get rid of the Presidency". It was because the original thread was about "getting rid of" the Senate. It would make no sense to talk about reforming or changing an institution in a thread which is about abolishing one.

However, what you have posted was a diversion from the original topic. If you want to make a thread about your concerns with the Presidency, go make one. Don't post about the Presidency in a thread which is about the Senate.

You never should have ventured out of the Fun Forum as your logic is not strong enough for this type of discussion

Is there really any need for these snide remarks at my expense? Have I done something to offend you, or has something happened and you are taking your frustrations out on me?

Is this really all about the presidency or is there something else you want to talk about, Jebus?

Jebus, I agree with your viewpoint that a wide power base is better than a narrower one, and a semi-presidential republic would be better than a presidential one. However, this isn't what you said. You said you wanted to abolish the presidency.

I don't see how one can achieve a wide power base while still keeping the US presidency in place. The two are interchangeable.

However, what you have posted was a diversion from the original topic. If you want to make a thread about your concerns with the Presidency, go make one. Don't post about the Presidency in a thread which is about the Senate.

I can easily split the thread if needed. However, I see no need to as no one is discussing the senate specifically. Anyway, the topic is government reform so it is not totally unrelated.

How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.